Deity defenders and prophet protectors

After the initial shock occasioned by the horror of senseless killings in the name of God, I often wonder if I am alone in my puzzlement over the rationale. The logic of the position of perpetrators of horror on behalf of the deity and/or his prophets goes like this:

My God has been abused or demeaned.It is right and proper to defend the defenceless.My God is defenceless.
Therefore it is right for me to defend my God.Defending my God requires inflicting harm on the abuser.Therefore it is right to inflict harm on the abuser.

If this does not represent the reasoning of the deity defenders, then that reasoning defies logic. What else could be the driving force or motivating factor? Of course, we could discountenance their rationality and that is how we have always dismissed the once-upon-a-time occasional outbursts of religious violence. They are just fanatics, we surmise, and they are on the fringe of rationality.

While this might be true, I want to pursue a line of reasoning that grants some rationality to the perpetrators of religious violence. I want to assume that they are as rational as everyone else and try to delve into the logic of their conduct. In any case, in light of the fact that these are no longer rare occurrences, it behoves us to pay attention. More to the point, my assumption of some element of rationality driving the agents of death in the name of God appears to be supported by our efforts to dialogue with them.

Let me also emphasise the point that deity defenders and prophet protectors are not the monopoly of any one religion—at least not confined to any one of the proselytising or Abramic religions. Christianity had its crusade just as Islam had, and still has its jihad. So the position I advance here is an equal opportunity challenge to the logic of any religion that has its share of deity defenders.

If the argument above fairly represents the logic of deity defenders and prophet protectors credited with rationality, we have a simple task to challenge its soundness.Let the truth of the first premise be assumed—God has been abused and demeaned. And let us grant the truth of the principle that it is right and proper to defend the defenceless.

The third premise of the argument which appears to present God as a defenceless being is one of two premises that appear to violate the logic of good judgement. Stating that God is defenceless, for all intents and purposes, appears to be more blasphemous than the original act of blasphemy that the deity defender is determined to protest. For it detracts from the omnipotence of God and presents human pretenders to power and strength as superior to the deity.

Yet, if the assumption that God is defenceless is untrue, the foundation on which deity defenders rest their action is exposed as spurious. But if it is true, then the whole edifice of religion tumbles down. How can anyone rationally believe in a defenceless God or justify confidence in the ability of a weak deity? Given this dilemma, the position of deity defenders is clearly absurd. The truth of the premise that God is defenceless puts them in an awkward position of worshipping a weak and defenceless God. Its falsity puts them in a position of doing on God’s behalf what he can do for himself.

I think we can all agree that God can defend himself and His prophets don’t need us to fight their cause. This was Martin Luther’s assurance when he suffered tribulation and persecution after he engaged the Church in his historic reformation efforts. “A mighty fortress is our God”, he proclaimed; “a bulwark never failing; our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal. Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing, were not the right man on our side, the man of God’s own choosing? Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; Lord Sabaoth is his name, from age to age the same and he must win the battle.”

Among the 99 names of Allah are the ones that describe his power and strength. Allah is As-Salaam, the source of peace and safety; Al-Muhaymin, the Guardian and Protector; Al-Aziz, the Almighty, the defeater who is not defeated; and Al-Fattah, the Victory Giver. All these appear to deny the truth of the position of those who would take it upon themselves to defend God against blasphemers. What else then could be going on?

It appears to me that what is going on is that we make the deity and the prophets in our own image, and that is the macho man image. Even when we acknowledge that God can defend himself, and when we understand that vengeance is his, we cannot let go and let God because we feel insulted when our God is insulted. It is akin to the story of the dutiful son who feels insulted by an assault on his papa.

Even when his old man contends that he can take care of himself or has decided to brush aside the insult, the son makes himself the victim. The personalisation of perceived harm to the deity and the prophets goes to the heart of the turmoil of our contemporary experience. Unfortunately, knowing that it has no basis in spirituality or religiosity and that it is purely self-serving will not make it go away.

The second offending premise is the one that describes the means and the instrument of defending the deity. “Defending my God requires inflicting harm on the abuser.” If you wonder why this proposition is assumed, the answer is that it is the only way to make sense of the violence that has become an integral part of any protest against what deity defenders and prophet protectors consider an abuse of their God.

It is difficult to see how defending a God or prophet must warrant harming people, including innocent ones who are not responsible for the insult in the first place. After all, the deities and prophets are acknowledged as peace, loving. It cannot be otherwise.

If they are creators of human beings and are intent on promoting the good of their creatures, they have to endorse peace and prohibit violence and harm. It follows then that whoever claims to defend a deity by inflicting harm on the creatures of the deity are engaged in a fundamental confusion of the mind. And only the deity can cure such confusion.